HF Updated Top 20 Devils Prospects

The difference is that players who make the NHL at 18 are almost unilaterally NHL players. There are 31 players who've made the NHL at 18 and played 10 or more games since 95-96 (aka the modern era) - 3 of them (Fata, A. Berg, Fritsche) were not successful NHLers.

Most players who make the NHL at 22 or later are fringe NHLers. There are some that aren't, and certainly there are also late-bloomers who come over from Europe like Damian Brunner, but drafted players who take that long? I don't expect much from them.

This is one of those arguments that doesn't really have any meaning without any context. Sort of like the idea that drafting a defenseman is a more risky proposition than drafting a forward, and thus it should inform your draft strategy. It matters precisely who you are talking about, and not just saying a player got playing time at 18 and will thus have a good career since that's what usually happens, or you ought to be hesitant to draft Adam Larsson over Courturier since the bust potential for a defenseman is greater. Obviously, the vast majority of 18 year old NHLers are top 10 or even top 5 picks in drafts of varying quality. Not to mention the fact that it's the bad teams that are drafting that high in the first place.

Matteau was maybe the only forward that wasn't named Tim Sestito that you could plausibly call up for a significant period of time, especially when you had a shortened season with virtually no training camp which made things a little quirky this year. Under most circumstances and with most teams his arrival time would have been about the same as any bottom first rounder in a so-so draft.

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be a useful if not good player. It just doesn't have much to do wtih the fact that he got some playing time this past year.

Edited by Daniel, 23 May 2013 - 09:46 AM.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

This is one of those arguments that doesn't really have any meaning without any context. Sort of like the idea that drafting a defenseman is a more risky proposition than drafting a forward, and thus it should inform your draft strategy. It matters precisely who you are talking about, and not just saying a player got playing time at 18 and will thus have a good career since that's what usually happens, or you ought to be hesitant to draft Adam Larsson over Courturier since the bust potential for a defenseman is greater. Obviously, the vast majority of 18 year old NHLers are top 10 or even top 5 picks in drafts of varying quality. Not to mention the fact that it's the bad teams that are drafting that high in the first place.

Matteau was maybe the only forward that wasn't named Tim Sestito that you could plausibly call up for a significant period of time, especially when you had a shortened season with virtually no training camp which made things a little quirky this year. Under most circumstances and with most teams his arrival time would have been about the same as any bottom first rounder in a so-so draft.

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be a useful if not good player. It just doesn't have much to do wtih the fact that he got some playing time this past year.

Not sure i understand your premise. You're trying to argue that Matteau held his own against men as an 18 year old doesnt hold any water? I think it's pretty damn impressive he averaged over a shot a game with limited ice time. Just wait till he gets bigger and stronger and I believe you'll see a 20-20 player

Not sure i understand your premise. You're trying to argue that Matteau held his own against men as an 18 year old doesnt hold any water? I think it's pretty damn impressive he averaged over a shot a game with limited ice time. Just wait till he gets bigger and stronger and I believe you'll see a 20-20 player

Maybe you're right about what he'll become. I saw him play, and am not as high on him as some people, but that's just me. Josefson made the team as a 19 (maybe early 20?) year old, but has regressed a little bit. Tedenby dramatically so.

Really, it started out with the objection about how Matteau could be ranked so low as compared to a bunch of other players that are 21 year old AHLers. Maybe it is a valid objection, I just wouldn't base it so much on the fact that he made it to the NHL this year.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Maybe you're right about what he'll become. I saw him play, and am not as high on him as some people, but that's just me. Josefson made the team as a 19 (maybe early 20?) year old, but has regressed a little bit. Tedenby dramatically so.

Really, it started out with the objection about how Matteau could be ranked so low as compared to a bunch of other players that are 21 year old AHLers. Maybe it is a valid objection, I just wouldn't base it so much on the fact that he made it to the NHL this year.

Like Tri said, if you're not in the league by 22, you're probably going to be a tweener. I get organizational strengths, but Urbom is probably not going to be anything more than a bottom pairing dman.

This is one of those arguments that doesn't really have any meaning without any context. Sort of like the idea that drafting a defenseman is a more risky proposition than drafting a forward, and thus it should inform your draft strategy. It matters precisely who you are talking about, and not just saying a player got playing time at 18 and will thus have a good career since that's what usually happens, or you ought to be hesitant to draft Adam Larsson over Courturier since the bust potential for a defenseman is greater. Obviously, the vast majority of 18 year old NHLers are top 10 or even top 5 picks in drafts of varying quality. Not to mention the fact that it's the bad teams that are drafting that high in the first place.

Matteau was maybe the only forward that wasn't named Tim Sestito that you could plausibly call up for a significant period of time, especially when you had a shortened season with virtually no training camp which made things a little quirky this year. Under most circumstances and with most teams his arrival time would have been about the same as any bottom first rounder in a so-so draft.

Don't get me wrong, I think he'll be a useful if not good player. It just doesn't have much to do wtih the fact that he got some playing time this past year.

You still ought to be careful of Adam Larssons, though. I don't think these two are the same thing. Imagine prospects are like an iceberg and you can only see the ocean's surface. You don't know how big the iceberg is under the water, but ultimately that's the most important part. Picking prospects is a lot like judging icebergs, and with forwards, there's more of the iceberg outside the water. That's the idea behind why picking defensemen is trouble - it's hard to identify which of their skills will translate to the NHL. We can see this by comparing the top 50 forwards and top 50 D men in ice time (or if you wish to have the D be in a 2/3 ratio to the forwards, fine) - more of the forwards were picked at the top of the draft.

Matteau made the team over Bobby Butler, and he beat out Mathieu Darche for an NHL spot. These aren't the greatest players to ever play the game, but they're NHL level players and the Devils judged that Matteau was better.

Mantzas: That's pretty much how my list would go although I think I'd switch out Burlon for Black - could just be a personal preference though.

The difference is that players who make the NHL at 18 are almost unilaterally NHL players. There are 31 players who've made the NHL at 18 and played 10 or more games since 95-96 (aka the modern era) - 3 of them (Fata, A. Berg, Fritsche) were not successful NHLers.

Most players who make the NHL at 22 or later are fringe NHLers. There are some that aren't, and certainly there are also late-bloomers who come over from Europe like Damian Brunner, but drafted players who take that long? I don't expect much from them.

If you have them on hand, how many of the 18 years old played under 20 games? How many had a scoring pace under 15 points? How many who played juniors had a scoring rate of under 0.81 points per game?

The point kind of being, we don't need to use generalities with Matteau or Urbom. We can see their specific cases.

The other day you claimed Tatar on Detroit is a good prospect but now claim Urbom likely isn't, due to age. In both cases the players were likely blocked by the NHL team not having spots open, not through their own lack of ability.

Matteau played 17 games this year as an 18 year old. I watched all those games. In the vast majority of them he played a nothing role and had little impact. I don't think that says much about his NHL future one way or another as most forwards drafted could play a nothing role and have little impact.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

If you have them on hand, how many of the 18 years old played under 20 games? How many had a scoring pace under 15 points? How many who played juniors had a scoring rate of under 0.81 points per game?

The point kind of being, we don't need to use generalities with Matteau or Urbom. We can see their specific cases.

The other day you claimed Tatar on Detroit is a good prospect but now claim Urbom likely isn't, due to age. In both cases the players were likely blocked by the NHL team not having spots open, not through their own lack of ability.

Matteau played 17 games this year as an 18 year old. I watched all those games. In the vast majority of them he played a nothing role and had little impact. I don't think that says much about his NHL future one way or another as most forwards drafted could play a nothing role and have little impact.

He played with subpar players besides a few games with Kovy. He got chances, showed willingness to bang bodies and had some flashes. That pass to Loktionov exhibited some serious skills and smarts

Matteau made the team over Bobby Butler, and he beat out Mathieu Darche for an NHL spot. These aren't the greatest players to ever play the game, but they're NHL level players and the Devils judged that Matteau was better.

Perhaps the Devils judged wrong though? Butler played 34 NHL games this season and had 4 goals and 7 assists and Darche, without being there, would seem like he likely would have been a better NHL than both last season. The Devils eventually judged Matteau not a NHL player last season.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

Like Tri said, if you're not in the league by 22, you're probably going to be a tweener. I get organizational strengths, but Urbom is probably not going to be anything more than a bottom pairing dman.

I don't think we can use the same age cut off for all prospects, I don't have the number,s nor do I know where to find them or I'd look, but I would suspect NHL defenseman do emerge at a later date than forwards. The Devils fielded a few guys who are good NHL defenseman who debuted at 22 or older.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

Tatar is a good prospect but again this is iceberg-spotting - we have his numbers. We don't have that with Urbom, it's just a guess. He played one game this year and didn't look good at all, but that's one game. When D don't put up numbers (and aren't breaking down the door to the NHL), it's just guesswork, but usually he doesn't turn out that good.

Perhaps the Devils judged wrong though? Butler played 34 NHL games this season and had 4 goals and 7 assists and Darche, without being there, would seem like he likely would have been a better NHL than both last season. The Devils eventually judged Matteau not a NHL player last season.

I'm not sure that this is what happened or if they decided he'd be better served in junior. Matteau's shot rate was very good and he did some nice things, but once the Devils started to acquire depth forwards he was rightfully squeezed out.

Tatar is a good prospect but again this is iceberg-spotting - we have his numbers. We don't have that with Urbom, it's just a guess. He played one game this year and didn't look good at all, but that's one game. When D don't put up numbers (and aren't breaking down the door to the NHL), it's just guesswork, but usually he doesn't turn out that good.

It feels a bit like cherry picking to say

"Most players who make the NHL at 22 or later are fringe NHLers. There are some that aren't, and certainly there are also late-bloomers who come over from Europe like Damian Brunner, but drafted players who take that long? I don't expect much from them."

and then argue that a certain guy is the exception because he has put up good AHL numbers.

If the argument is by age, then Tatar falls into that same category and the numbers are moot because we aren't examining the specific prospects or situations, we're just making a blanket argument that players who don't make the NHL by 22 are unlikely to be good. Especially when one is a forward and one is a defenseman, which I'm still assuming the former has an easier time cracking NHL rosters.

Edited by Devils731, 23 May 2013 - 10:47 AM.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

"Most players who make the NHL at 22 or later are fringe NHLers. There are some that aren't, and certainly there are also late-bloomers who come over from Europe like Damian Brunner, but drafted players who take that long? I don't expect much from them."

and then argue that a certain guy is the exception because he has put up good AHL numbers.

If the argument is by age, then Tatar falls into that same category and the numbers are moot because we aren't examining the specific prospects or situations, we're just making a blanket argument that players who don't make the NHL by 22 are unlikely to be good. Especially when one is a forward and one is a defenseman, which I'm still assuming the former has an easier time cracking NHL rosters.

That's why the word 'most' is in there. You have to go on a case by case basis, and obviously players make large unpredictable jumps at the NHL level (david clarkson, e.g.).

Tatar got into 18 NHL games and put up good numbers, strengthening his case. Urbom didn't get the chance to do so, but it is hard to judge either way.

He played with subpar players besides a few games with Kovy. He got chances, showed willingness to bang bodies and had some flashes. That pass to Loktionov exhibited some serious skills and smarts

Kind of like this:

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

The point is, is that you can't judge a player based on a nice play he made as a rookie.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?